Originally posted by Cuathon Originally posted by MotokoHutt
Originally posted by Cuathon You think modern MMOs are TOO social? Mind. Blown.
let me expand on that Idea for you, when I 1st started to play MMORPG games it seemed like the best guild's/Team's in the game were based of people who were "skill full" players who were driven to be the best, now it seems that to be the best guild u just need 100-200-300+ people then no one will stop you, is that seriously the way things should be ? I dno maybe maybe not but its only my opinion I am not trying to say what's wrong or right I do not understand this at all. How is having more people in a themepark guild useful? All the guild content is restricted to 5-25 people. A 300 person guild is a waste of time. I think that EvE has an excellent model. You have your corp which you can keep to just people you know or friends, and then larger alliances for nullsec warfare. And alliances coordinate between corp leaders. Most people can manage like 150 relationships. So what you do is get a 25-50man corp, and then you have 50 other corps in your alliance. So that is 1250 to 2500 players you can work with without having to be bffs. You get lots of small group content, but you also have access to the massively multiplayer regional nullsec warfare content. Most other AAA MMOs only have tiny ass group content and are primarily about soloing. And you also don't get any market interaction.
what I am talking about taking Grand Fantasia for a example, say I went into a Guild war with 30 Pro real well kitted players & all of them show up, now the other guild has 300-400 players and 314 of them show up then who is going to win ? no matter how skill full a person is they cant fight 1 vs 10 odd's can they ? of course not that's what I meant
Originally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by nariusseldon
Last time I check, i don't need anyone ELSE in the world when i explore it.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
Originally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by nariusseldon
Last time I check, i don't need anyone ELSE in the world when i explore it.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
lol not to insult your intelligence but did you just read what I just put ? I already said that I was expanding on what you said & what was said aka what the other guy said so that means it concern's what you had put aka why I quoted what you said, is that so wrong ? let me ask you this, why are you getting so offended about me quoting your post ? what does it matter ?
let me expand on that Idea for you, when I 1st started to play MMORPG games it seemed like the best guild's/Team's in the game were based of people who were "skill full" players who were driven to be the best, now it seems that to be the best guild u just need 100-200-300+ people then no one will stop you, is that seriously the way things should be ? I dno maybe maybe not but its only my opinion I am not trying to say what's wrong or right
I do not understand this at all. How is having more people in a themepark guild useful? All the guild content is restricted to 5-25 people. A 300 person guild is a waste of time.
I think that EvE has an excellent model. You have your corp which you can keep to just people you know or friends, and then larger alliances for nullsec warfare. And alliances coordinate between corp leaders.
Most people can manage like 150 relationships. So what you do is get a 25-50man corp, and then you have 50 other corps in your alliance. So that is 1250 to 2500 players you can work with without having to be bffs. You get lots of small group content, but you also have access to the massively multiplayer regional nullsec warfare content.
Most other AAA MMOs only have tiny ass group content and are primarily about soloing. And you also don't get any market interaction.
what I am talking about taking Grand Fantasia for a example, say I went into a Guild war with 30 Pro real well kitted players & all of them show up, now the other guild has 300-400 players and 314 of them show up then who is going to win ? no matter how skill full a person is they cant fight 1 vs 10 odd's can they ? of course not that's what I meant
Your posts are very difficult to understand. Perhaps you should be more clear.
It makes perfect sense that you would lose that fight. Of course that is exacerbated by the fact that themeparks have level caps. In a non capped game you could go 10 to 1 if you put in the work to become powerful.
Why should you win a fight if you brought a losing team? It sounds like you want to play instanced PvP with group size caps. In which case kinda weird that you don't play one of the dozens of themepark MMOs with instanced size capped PvP.
Of course MMOs were always supposed to be about world PvP and thus you losing that fight makes perfect sense. I'm not sure how you could argue that that was an anti MMO occurence.
Originally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by MotokoHuttOriginally posted by RefMinor Originally posted by nariusseldon
Last time I check, i don't need anyone ELSE in the world when i explore it.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
lol not to insult your intelligence but did you just read what I just put ? I already said that I was expanding on what you said & what was said aka what the other guy said so that means it concern's what you had put aka why I quoted what you said, is that so wrong ? let me ask you this, why are you getting so offended about me quoting your post ? what does it matter ?
Simple forum etiquette, if you just want to make a general point, don't reply to a specific post, if you want to reply to what someone has put then reply to that post.
Last time I check, i don't need anyone ELSE in the world when i explore it.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
lol not to insult your intelligence but did you just read what I just put ? I already said that I was expanding on what you said & what was said aka what the other guy said so that means it concern's what you had put aka why I quoted what you said, is that so wrong ? let me ask you this, why are you getting so offended about me quoting your post ? what does it matter ?
What you said had nothing to do with what he said. Whether or not its a valid point is irrelevant because it was totally off topic.
Your posts are very difficult to understand. Perhaps you should be more clear.
It makes perfect sense that you would lose that fight. Of course that is exacerbated by the fact that themeparks have level caps. In a non capped game you could go 10 to 1 if you put in the work to become powerful.
Why should you win a fight if you brought a losing team? It sounds like you want to play instanced PvP with group size caps. In which case kinda weird that you don't play one of the dozens of themepark MMOs with instanced size capped PvP.
Of course MMOs were always supposed to be about world PvP and thus you losing that fight makes perfect sense. I'm not sure how you could argue that that was an anti MMO occurence.
Guess that is why most of the first MMO's were about groups working together for a common goal, mostly in PvE. It is a lie that MMO's were always about PvP.
ok ok people stop ganging up on me I am not the enemy here now your just making me feel pressured & scared to even talk on this website.
let me make it completely clear the reply was not off topic it was bang on topic, I am not going to argue that fact but it is a fact, elaborating on a couple of peoples Ideas to make a point inst going off topic.
1. I though it was relevant to quote what was said what's so wrong with that ?
2. my opinion is my opinion its not like I tried to put it on anyone else did I ?
3. you don't want me to quote you why cant you just ask me politely & maybe I would say ok
4. why would I play a different game completely to get fair odd's on PvP
5. most games have "NOT WOULD BASED" Guild vs Guild battles that have no player restriction
Your posts are very difficult to understand. Perhaps you should be more clear.
It makes perfect sense that you would lose that fight. Of course that is exacerbated by the fact that themeparks have level caps. In a non capped game you could go 10 to 1 if you put in the work to become powerful.
Why should you win a fight if you brought a losing team? It sounds like you want to play instanced PvP with group size caps. In which case kinda weird that you don't play one of the dozens of themepark MMOs with instanced size capped PvP.
Of course MMOs were always supposed to be about world PvP and thus you losing that fight makes perfect sense. I'm not sure how you could argue that that was an anti MMO occurence.
Guess that is why most of the first MMO's were about groups working together for a common goal, mostly in PvE. It is a lie that MMO's were always about PvP.
MMOs were always about WORLD pvp if they had pvp. Instanced PvP is anti MMO. If they didn't have PvP which is also fine then it doesn't matter what MMO PvP was intended to be.
ok ok people stop ganging up on me I am not the enemy here now your just making me feel pressured & scared to even talk on this website.
let me make it completely clear the reply was not off topic it was bang on topic, I am not going to argue that fact but it is a fact, elaborating on a couple of peoples Ideas to make a point inst going off topic.
1. I though it was relevant to quote what was said what's so wrong with that ?
2. my opinion is my opinion its not like I tried to put it on anyone else did I ?
3. you don't want me to quote you why cant you just ask me politely & maybe I would say ok
4. why would I play a different game completely to get fair odd's on PvP
5. most games have "NOT WOULD BASED" Guild vs Guild battles that have no player restriction
Two people disagreeing is not ganging up and a couple posts in one thread making you scared to post, what does that even mean???, sounds like a personal issue.
If you quote someone you need to address something they said. What you posted did not address the quote you used. Even if you could say that whether a post is on topic is a fact, that would be solely decided by the person being quoted. Since he set the topic.
This arguement is boring and surely mods will come in if we keep going so this is my last post.
This is the same discussion being held over and over for years now: those people who feel that MMORPG's only can be virtual worlds where any instancing is a bane (because they don't enjoy it) and therefore any MMORPG using it isn't a 'true' MMORPG, and other people who feel that MMORPG's are first and foremostly a game, that it's about having fun in it and that features that provide that are good, even if it's instancing and non-virtual world promoting features.
This discussion will never end, basically because both groups are in the end about the same, what's fun to them, only they differ in what makes stuff fun for them. The latter group I think is more flexible and adaptable to different kinds of gameplay and MMORPG's than the first group though, who seem to be only capable of having great fun if an MMORPG is a virtual world type and adhere themselves to that preference.
This is the same discussion being held over and over for years now: those people who feel that MMORPG's only can be virtual worlds where any instancing is a bane (because they don't enjoy it) and therefore any MMORPG using it isn't a 'true' MMORPG, and other people who feel that MMORPG's are first and foremostly a game, that it's about having fun in it and that features that provide that are good, even if it's instancing and non-virtual world promoting features.
This discussion will never end, basically because both groups are in the end about the same, what's fun to them, only they differ in what makes stuff fun for them. The latter group I think is more flexible and adaptable to different kinds of gameplay and MMORPG's than the first group though, who seem to be only capable of having great fun if an MMORPG is a virtual world type and adhere themselves to that preference.
This is blatant bullshit. I said that instances are anti MMO. Not anti fun. I played lots of instanced "MMOs". They are fun but not MMOs.
This is the same discussion being held over and over for years now: those people who feel that MMORPG's only can be virtual worlds where any instancing is a bane (because they don't enjoy it) and therefore any MMORPG using it isn't a 'true' MMORPG, and other people who feel that MMORPG's are first and foremostly a game, that it's about having fun in it and that features that provide that are good, even if it's instancing and non-virtual world promoting features.
This discussion will never end, basically because both groups are in the end about the same, what's fun to them, only they differ in what makes stuff fun for them. The latter group I think is more flexible and adaptable to different kinds of gameplay and MMORPG's than the first group though, who seem to be only capable of having great fun if an MMORPG is a virtual world type and adhere themselves to that preference.
This is blatant bullshit. I said that instances are anti MMO. Not anti fun. I played lots of instanced "MMOs". They are fun but not MMOs.
Despite your personal preferences which are obvious, MMORPG's aren't limited to the narrow range that you consider them to be. Instancing may not be 'virtual world' like as how some only consider it to be, but if it's a feature that's used in a majority of AAA MMORPG's, then it's obviously become a possible part of the "MMO". That's logic.
Anything else is just elitism and pining for the 'good old days', which we see too much of already.
This is the same discussion being held over and over for years now: those people who feel that MMORPG's only can be virtual worlds where any instancing is a bane (because they don't enjoy it) and therefore any MMORPG using it isn't a 'true' MMORPG, and other people who feel that MMORPG's are first and foremostly a game, that it's about having fun in it and that features that provide that are good, even if it's instancing and non-virtual world promoting features.
This discussion will never end, basically because both groups are in the end about the same, what's fun to them, only they differ in what makes stuff fun for them. The latter group I think is more flexible and adaptable to different kinds of gameplay and MMORPG's than the first group though, who seem to be only capable of having great fun if an MMORPG is a virtual world type and adhere themselves to that preference.
This is blatant bullshit. I said that instances are anti MMO. Not anti fun. I played lots of instanced "MMOs". They are fun but not MMOs.
Despite your personal preferences which are obvious, MMORPG's aren't limited to the narrow range that you consider them to be. Instancing may not be 'virtual world' like as how some only consider it to be, but if it's a feature that's used in a majority of AAA MMORPG's, then it's obviously become a possible part of the "MMO". That's logic.
Anything else is just elitism and pining for the 'good old days', which we see too much of already.
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
You must have missed the latest memo. FEW MMOs are plannning for sub fees anymore. The ONLY big one left is TOR. Almost everyone else is going F2P. So tell me, why do dev need to justifcy a sub fee when there is none?
Red and green are just labels. If for some strange reason, suddenly the label is switch, the world will still go on. *And* genre of gaming evolves all the time. Just make your own label (like in this other thread). It really does not matter when 5 people do not think WOW is a MMORPG, when the whole industry, press and millions of players are using that label.
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
You must have missed the latest memo. FEW MMOs are plannning for sub fees anymore. The ONLY big one left is TOR. Almost everyone else is going F2P. So tell me, why do dev need to justifcy a sub fee when there is none?
Red and green are just labels. If for some strange reason, suddenly the label is switch, the world will still go on. *And* genre of gaming evolves all the time. Just make your own label (like in this other thread). It really does not matter when 5 people do not think WOW is a MMORPG, when the whole industry, press and millions of players are using that label.
Let's see if one day you wil be complaining about the side effects caused by a lack of subs money.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
Two things strike me there.
1) You seemed to indicate that WOW and SWTOR are not MMOs. Did I read that right?
2) It isn't circular reasoning, it's evolution of the genre. A good example would be how PnP RPGs, CRPGs and console RPGs seemed to fork off in different directions with varying degrees of emphasis on either narrative or progression. The genre evolved and expanded as new variations emerged.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
You must have missed the latest memo. FEW MMOs are plannning for sub fees anymore. The ONLY big one left is TOR. Almost everyone else is going F2P. So tell me, why do dev need to justifcy a sub fee when there is none?
Red and green are just labels. If for some strange reason, suddenly the label is switch, the world will still go on. *And* genre of gaming evolves all the time. Just make your own label (like in this other thread). It really does not matter when 5 people do not think WOW is a MMORPG, when the whole industry, press and millions of players are using that label.
Let's see if one day you wil be complaining about the side effects caused by a lack of subs money.
Most likely not. I will just quit MMO, if there aren't any fun to me, and do something else. (It is not like i haven't done that before .. if it is not for WOW and LFR, i won't be back playing MMOs anyway).
Plus, it is an established fact that F2P brings in MORE money than sub for quite a few MMOs.
Comments
let me expand on that Idea for you, when I 1st started to play MMORPG games it seemed like the best guild's/Team's in the game were based of people who were "skill full" players who were driven to be the best, now it seems that to be the best guild u just need 100-200-300+ people then no one will stop you, is that seriously the way things should be ? I dno maybe maybe not but its only my opinion I am not trying to say what's wrong or right
I do not understand this at all. How is having more people in a themepark guild useful? All the guild content is restricted to 5-25 people. A 300 person guild is a waste of time.
I think that EvE has an excellent model. You have your corp which you can keep to just people you know or friends, and then larger alliances for nullsec warfare. And alliances coordinate between corp leaders.
Most people can manage like 150 relationships. So what you do is get a 25-50man corp, and then you have 50 other corps in your alliance. So that is 1250 to 2500 players you can work with without having to be bffs. You get lots of small group content, but you also have access to the massively multiplayer regional nullsec warfare content.
Most other AAA MMOs only have tiny ass group content and are primarily about soloing. And you also don't get any market interaction.
what I am talking about taking Grand Fantasia for a example, say I went into a Guild war with 30 Pro real well kitted players & all of them show up, now the other guild has 300-400 players and 314 of them show up then who is going to win ? no matter how skill full a person is they cant fight 1 vs 10 odd's can they ? of course not that's what I meant
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
lol not to insult your intelligence but did you just read what I just put ? I already said that I was expanding on what you said & what was said aka what the other guy said so that means it concern's what you had put aka why I quoted what you said, is that so wrong ? let me ask you this, why are you getting so offended about me quoting your post ? what does it matter ?
Your posts are very difficult to understand. Perhaps you should be more clear.
It makes perfect sense that you would lose that fight. Of course that is exacerbated by the fact that themeparks have level caps. In a non capped game you could go 10 to 1 if you put in the work to become powerful.
Why should you win a fight if you brought a losing team? It sounds like you want to play instanced PvP with group size caps. In which case kinda weird that you don't play one of the dozens of themepark MMOs with instanced size capped PvP.
Of course MMOs were always supposed to be about world PvP and thus you losing that fight makes perfect sense. I'm not sure how you could argue that that was an anti MMO occurence.
But it helps to make it a richer experience.
personally when I am going around in a MMORPG game I do like to work in a small Squad like team but I do think that Social Interaction is still vital, however I don't like being in a massive guild for instance with like 100-200+ players as I find it very confusing & un-organised, whenever I have had a Guild in a game I only want 20-30 players max in the guild that know each other get along & help each other, is this the wrong way to be going for a MMO game ? I don't know maybe maybe not but I do not see anything wrong with me wanting a "Circle of Friends" instead of trying to get to know & work with 100+ people that I know nothing about, when I do have a small Guild of 20-30 people then I know what they are capable of & they know what I am capable of and personally I find that the best way to go, I do think however that most MMORPG's these days focus "too much" on the social aspect & not enough on game play & world variety, I think that some (not all) MMORPG's are becoming so Social based that they might as well be a Social networking game like Second Life, I don't know if anyone feels the same way ?
I think you missed my point completely.
am I ? or am I just on a different wave length for playing games as you ?
You obviously weren't replying to my post and just spouting off whatever was in your head. If you had read the comment Narius said about there being no need to have anyone ELSE in a world in order to explore it and my reply saying that you will have a richer experience if there were some people in the world you were exploring then you would not have started rambling about supersize guilds and circles of friends.
Ok 1 please don't start insulating my intelligence I was replying to you but also elaborating on the Idea between what was said & what you said, what is wrong with taking a Idea & expanding on it ? maybe you just got me wrong ? I don't know what you were thinking or how you interpreted what I said but still please don't insult my intelligence as I always mean to say things & never just spout out random not on topic jagen.
Then please don't reply to my post if that isn't what you are going to discuss.
lol not to insult your intelligence but did you just read what I just put ? I already said that I was expanding on what you said & what was said aka what the other guy said so that means it concern's what you had put aka why I quoted what you said, is that so wrong ? let me ask you this, why are you getting so offended about me quoting your post ? what does it matter ?
What you said had nothing to do with what he said. Whether or not its a valid point is irrelevant because it was totally off topic.
Guess that is why most of the first MMO's were about groups working together for a common goal, mostly in PvE. It is a lie that MMO's were always about PvP.
ok ok people stop ganging up on me I am not the enemy here now your just making me feel pressured & scared to even talk on this website.
let me make it completely clear the reply was not off topic it was bang on topic, I am not going to argue that fact but it is a fact, elaborating on a couple of peoples Ideas to make a point inst going off topic.
1. I though it was relevant to quote what was said what's so wrong with that ?
2. my opinion is my opinion its not like I tried to put it on anyone else did I ?
3. you don't want me to quote you why cant you just ask me politely & maybe I would say ok
4. why would I play a different game completely to get fair odd's on PvP
5. most games have "NOT WOULD BASED" Guild vs Guild battles that have no player restriction
MMOs were always about WORLD pvp if they had pvp. Instanced PvP is anti MMO. If they didn't have PvP which is also fine then it doesn't matter what MMO PvP was intended to be.
Two people disagreeing is not ganging up and a couple posts in one thread making you scared to post, what does that even mean???, sounds like a personal issue.
If you quote someone you need to address something they said. What you posted did not address the quote you used. Even if you could say that whether a post is on topic is a fact, that would be solely decided by the person being quoted. Since he set the topic.
This arguement is boring and surely mods will come in if we keep going so this is my last post.
This is the same discussion being held over and over for years now: those people who feel that MMORPG's only can be virtual worlds where any instancing is a bane (because they don't enjoy it) and therefore any MMORPG using it isn't a 'true' MMORPG, and other people who feel that MMORPG's are first and foremostly a game, that it's about having fun in it and that features that provide that are good, even if it's instancing and non-virtual world promoting features.
This discussion will never end, basically because both groups are in the end about the same, what's fun to them, only they differ in what makes stuff fun for them. The latter group I think is more flexible and adaptable to different kinds of gameplay and MMORPG's than the first group though, who seem to be only capable of having great fun if an MMORPG is a virtual world type and adhere themselves to that preference.
This is blatant bullshit. I said that instances are anti MMO. Not anti fun. I played lots of instanced "MMOs". They are fun but not MMOs.
Despite your personal preferences which are obvious, MMORPG's aren't limited to the narrow range that you consider them to be. Instancing may not be 'virtual world' like as how some only consider it to be, but if it's a feature that's used in a majority of AAA MMORPG's, then it's obviously become a possible part of the "MMO". That's logic.
Anything else is just elitism and pining for the 'good old days', which we see too much of already.
That's argument ad populum for one thing. Also dev's have a powerful motivation to call their games MMOs because that is what justifies a sub fee. You act as if no one ever misused a word to gain a benefit.
If I say that red is green and millions of children are taught that from birth does that mean that red is green? Similarly if your first "MMO" is WoW or SWTOR than obviously you think those are MMOs because you didn't actually know any of the history of the word.
Just because you call something an MMO doesn't make it one. So saying that because most modern "MMOs" are called MMOs and are therefore MMOs is circular reasoning.
You must have missed the latest memo. FEW MMOs are plannning for sub fees anymore. The ONLY big one left is TOR. Almost everyone else is going F2P. So tell me, why do dev need to justifcy a sub fee when there is none?
Red and green are just labels. If for some strange reason, suddenly the label is switch, the world will still go on. *And* genre of gaming evolves all the time. Just make your own label (like in this other thread). It really does not matter when 5 people do not think WOW is a MMORPG, when the whole industry, press and millions of players are using that label.
Let's see if one day you wil be complaining about the side effects caused by a lack of subs money.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Two things strike me there.
1) You seemed to indicate that WOW and SWTOR are not MMOs. Did I read that right?
2) It isn't circular reasoning, it's evolution of the genre. A good example would be how PnP RPGs, CRPGs and console RPGs seemed to fork off in different directions with varying degrees of emphasis on either narrative or progression. The genre evolved and expanded as new variations emerged.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Most likely not. I will just quit MMO, if there aren't any fun to me, and do something else. (It is not like i haven't done that before .. if it is not for WOW and LFR, i won't be back playing MMOs anyway).
Plus, it is an established fact that F2P brings in MORE money than sub for quite a few MMOs.